Baseball 2009

Garion81 wrote: rileydog 22 wrote: ERA is WAY too dependent on defense and luck.     Since it only concerns earned runs I disagree.  Baseball is a team game and a pitcher does not get 3 outs on their own. ERA does not include runs caused by errors on the defense so it is a good measure of what the pitcher does when his defense is good.  A pitcher with a consistent lower ERA over time is much more wanted than a pitcher that doesn't.    As for luck name one pitcher that didn't have luck factor in to his results good or bad.  How do you account for umpire bias or incompentence? (Think Greg Maddux never got calls other guys didn't?)   A player swinging at a pitch out of the strike zone?  A ball hitting a pebble and taking a bad bounce.  Your telling me there is a stat that handles all of these things?!?   In a simple example.  Name any starting pitcher who's ERA really doesn't reflect his performance over lets say at least 10 starts?  If a guy has an ERA of 4.5+ and his record is 10-5 you can surmise he gets good run support and gets into trouble a couple of times a game.  If has a 2.5 ERA and is 5-10 you can assume he doesn't.  Which guy would you trade for?  Or how about the guy who is 2-4 with a 2.5 ERA in 12 starts?  It tells me the guy is coming out of the game eithier winning or tied most of the time and doesn't get a decision.   The ERA going up or down over a period of time reflects how a pitcher is performing on a sliding scale for a shorter period of time.  For me that is enough.   Of course the naked eye is the best.

ERA does not consider runs which are allowed by what the official scorer somewhat arbitrarily decides is an error.  This is an absolutely abysmal attempt to control for defense.  Even if we assume that the official scorer has perfect judgment with respect to what is and is not an error, this is not a good measure of defense.  If a pitcher generates a ground ball, he has no control over whether his shortstop gets to it.  If he has Adam Everett or JJ Hardy manning short, that groundball is far more likely to be turned into an out than if he has Hanley Ramirez behind him.  Hanley is pretty surehanded, but he simply cannot get to some grounders that superior defenders can.  Over time, there is a very real effect on a pitcher's ERA based on the abilities of his defense to convert batted balls to outs.  A perfect example has occured in Texas this year; they drastically upgraded their infield defense this year, and their staff ERA has improved from 5.37 to 4.23 despite very modest changes in their K's and BB's. 

A perfect example of a pitcher who has been screwed by luck this year is Ricky Nolasco.  He's 11th in the league in strikeout rate, while walking under 3 hitters per nine innings--a performance that suggests approximately a 3.5 ERA.  However, because of some poor luck with respect to how many of the balls in play behind him become hits--a factor almost entirely out of his control--he's got a 5.3 ERA.

ERA is not a terrible statistic, but there's much better ways of measuring how well a pitcher performs. 

rushfan4 wrote: Sad news here in Tiger Town for the voice of the Detroit Tigers.  Ernie Harwell is 91 years old so it is only a matter of time until we lose him, but he was diagnosed with inoperable cancer so it sounds as though he doesn't have too long to go.  http://www.freep.com/article/20090903/NEWS05/309030002/1318/Not-even-cancer-diagnosis-can-shake-Harwell-s-spirit

That's too bad. He is a class act.

rushfan4 wrote: Sad news here in Tiger Town for the voice of the Detroit Tigers.  Ernie Harwell is 91 years old so it is only a matter of time until we lose him, but he was diagnosed with inoperable cancer so it sounds as though he doesn't have too long to go.  http://www.freep.com/article/20090903/NEWS05/309030002/1318/Not-even-cancer-diagnosis-can-shake-Harwell-s-spirit

We know all too well about this kind of loss. 


Edited by Padraic - September 04 2009 at 13:13

The Buccos are 2 losses from another losing season. How can a team put a 6 spot up on a 17 game winner and still lose a game?

I've gone to two Pirates games since I've arrived in Pittsburgh and the Bucs have won both of them.  I think I'm a reverse-jinx or something.  

The Tigers have won 6 in a row, including 3 on the road.    And now they are heading to Kansas City, where who knows what will happen. 

crimhead wrote: rileydog22 wrote: I've gone to two Pirates games since I've arrived in Pittsburgh and the Bucs have won both of them.  I think I'm a reverse-jinx or something.   What would it cost me for you to go to all the remaining games so that they might finish at .500? Nevernind, they are losing to the Cubs.

crimhead wrote: rushfan4 wrote: The Tigers have won 6 in a row, including 3 on the road.    And now they are heading to Kansas City, where who knows what will happen.  Rest easy, the Royals glory days much like the Pirates are in the past. I'd say look for 2 out of 3.

It appears as though the Royals are going to sweep the Tigers.  I didn't have a good vibe about this series.

LETS GO TWINS

At school I kind of forget about the Yanks...but they are still hot it appears!
On that note:

Derek Jeter has just gotten his 2,722nd hit moving past Lou Gehrig, and is now the ALL TIME hits leader on the New York Yankees.....
Too think I grew up watching him too

A true team player and class act as well


Edited by JJLehto - September 11 2009 at 20:27